Plot

Walsh discusses a controversial court ruling in Australia about the definition of "woman," RFK Jr.'s endorsement of Trump, and the harmful influence of modern feminist ideologies, while also promoting his upcoming film "Am I Racist?"

Matt Walsh critiques an Australian court's redefinition of the word "woman" in a case involving a trans-identified male, examines RFK Jr.'s endorsement of Donald Trump and its implications, and explores the damaging effects of modern feminist ideologies, particularly focusing on the story of Alex Cooper and her podcast "Call Her Daddy." Walsh argues that society's rejection of traditional gender roles has led to confusion and a lack of leadership, which he sees as contributing to societal decay. The discussion also touches on issues of reproductive rights, space exploration challenges, and Walsh's promotion of his upcoming film "Am I Racist?"—J. Spurlin

Matt Walsh begins by addressing the recent case where a trans-identified male sued for access to a women-only app, prompting a court in Australia to officially define the word "woman." Walsh believes the court got the definition wrong. He then shifts to discussing RFK Jr.'s unexpected endorsement of Trump, noting the significant impact it has on the race. Walsh also touches on Trump's recent comments supporting "reproductive rights" and expresses his disapproval.

Walsh transitions to discussing a clip from his upcoming movie, "Am I Racist?" He warns viewers that the clip is particularly painful to watch. The movie seems to continue his trend of addressing controversial societal issues head-on. He also mentions that the host of the most popular podcast for women is being canceled today, although he doesn't provide details on the reasons yet.

Walsh resumes the discussion by highlighting the ongoing difficulty in getting a clear answer to the question "What is a woman?" from gender activists, liberal professors, and political commentators. Despite the release of his film "What Is A Woman?" over two years ago, those on the left still refuse to provide a straightforward answer. Instead, they deflect, accuse others of being transphobic, or avoid the question entirely. Walsh argues that throughout human history, the answer was simple and universally understood, but now it's shrouded in ambiguity. He emphasizes that, in reality, a woman is an adult human female, but gender activists offer vague definitions, claiming that a woman is whatever one wants it to be.

Walsh stresses the importance of having a functional definition of "woman," especially for interpreting laws and civil rights legislation. While many court cases have focused on issues like "trans medicine" and the rights of parents, the fundamental question of what it means to be a woman or a man has largely been ignored. However, this is starting to change as courts, particularly overseas, are now being forced to confront this issue directly. Unfortunately, Walsh points out that these courts often deliver politically driven rulings rather than correct answers.

Walsh then delves into a recent case in Australia, where the federal court had to rule on the definition of womanhood. The case involves a man named Roxan Tickle, who identifies as a woman. Tickle downloaded an app called Giggle for Girls, intended exclusively for women to interact in a safe environment. The app was created by a woman who wanted to offer a refuge for others like her, having experienced sexual abuse. Initially, an AI program determined that Tickle was likely a woman based on his profile picture, allowing him access. However, months later, someone at Giggle reviewed his profile more closely and determined that Tickle was clearly a man, leading to his ban from the app.

Tickle responded by suing Giggle for sex discrimination, and Australia's federal court ruled in his favor, declaring that Tickle is indeed a woman. As a result, Giggle was ordered to pay substantial damages. Walsh finds the case nearly comical, with the court's decision being both absurd and politically motivated. He concludes that the situation demonstrates the ongoing confusion and misguided rulings surrounding gender ideology.

Walsh continues by noting that the app Giggle, which had around 20,000 users at its peak, is currently offline but is expected to relaunch soon. He emphasizes that it's impossible to discuss this case without showing what Roxan Tickle looks and sounds like. He shares a news report that shows Tickle and summarizes the court ruling. The report mentions that the federal court found that Tickle's exclusion from Giggle constituted unlawful discrimination, marking a significant decision in favor of Tickle. The court ruled that all women, including transgender and gender-diverse individuals, are protected from discrimination.

Walsh, unimpressed by the court's decision, questions how the Australian federal court determined that Tickle is a woman. He sarcastically points out that one doesn't need a lengthy court decision to figure out Tickle's gender. Walsh reveals that the court's ruling doesn't provide a clear definition of "woman." Instead, the court redefines "sex" as a broad concept not confined to biological traits or a binary understanding but rather influenced by state and territory legislation, social recognition, and how a person presents themselves. Walsh criticizes this vague and politically motivated redefinition.

He highlights the inconsistency in the court's ruling, noting that while it claims there are more than two sexes, it doesn't specify what those other sexes are. Walsh mocks the common claim that there are multiple sexes, pointing out that no one ever names even one additional sex beyond male and female. He further criticizes the court's reliance on factors like social recognition and legal definitions to determine someone's sex, arguing that these factors still don't provide a clear or meaningful definition of "woman."

Walsh concludes that the court ultimately decided Tickle is a woman simply because the court said so, without any thorough analysis or social polling. He explains that the court referenced the 1984 Sex Discrimination Act, which protected women from discrimination but didn't define "woman" because it was unnecessary at the time. Now, decades later, the court has taken it upon itself to redefine the term, inventing criteria that align with its political agenda rather than providing clarity.

Walsh criticizes the Australian federal court for deciding what a woman is without providing a clear definition. He argues that Australians are being forced to ignore their common sense and knowledge of basic human biology, instead obeying the arbitrary rulings of the court. According to Walsh, the court's decision essentially declares that a woman is anyone the court says is a woman, regardless of biological reality. He mentions that this decision will be appealed to Australia's highest court, but for now, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Walsh then shifts to a related case in the United States, where a family in Maryland lost custody of their 16-year-old autistic son because they refused to acknowledge his belief that he was a girl. The teenager had gone through a breakup, attempted suicide, and was later diagnosed with gender dysphoria by Children's National Hospital in Washington, DC. Walsh questions how the hospital reached this conclusion and criticizes the institution for reporting the parents to Child Protective Services, ultimately resulting in the boy being placed in foster care.

He further explains that the boy attempted suicide again after being placed in foster care with a single mother who had a previous criminal record for assault. The parents are now suing the hospital, although the details of the lawsuit are unclear due to sealed court filings. The case has reportedly reached the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Walsh points out that the hospital's non-gendered chaplain, Lavender Kelly, played a significant role in the child's situation. He describes Kelly as a gender ideologue and LGBT activist, questioning why a children's hospital would employ someone more focused on activism than medicine.

Walsh concludes by condemning the growing trend of children's hospitals acting as activist operations rather than medical institutions. He recalls that this same hospital was involved in a controversy with the Libs of TikTok account, where they admitted to performing gender-affirming hysterectomies on minors. Walsh argues that such actions are barbaric and highlights the troubling power these institutions have in deciding whether the government can take children away from their parents. He warns that these horror stories are only possible because courts are increasingly willing to invent and enforce new laws to support gender ideology, while punishing those who maintain a traditional definition of gender.

Walsh continues by noting that the Maryland case, similar to the situation in Australia, only started gaining attention on social media recently. He warns that while it might be tempting to think that Australia's unscientific and arbitrary understanding of gender won't influence American judges, the truth is that it already has, at least in one case. He sees this as a troubling development, signaling that the judicial system in the U.S. is not immune to the same kind of misguided rulings.

Walsh briefly mentions a sneak peek of his upcoming film, "Am I Racist?" set to premiere on September 13th. The preview showcases a scene from a "Race to Dinner" event, a gathering where white women pay to be called racist by two women named Syra Rao and Regina Jackson. Walsh explains that the concept involves white women being confronted with their alleged racism over dinner. However, Walsh wasn't allowed to attend the dinner because he isn't a woman, highlighting the irony that these women enforce a gender rule while being unable to define what a woman is.

To gain access to the event, Walsh had to find another way to "earn his seat at the table." The scene in the preview shows Walsh's effort to do just that. Although it's only a portion of the "Race to Dinner" experience, it captures the moment when Walsh finally secures his place at the table, much to the discomfort of the other attendees. In the clip, a participant begins by expressing her dissatisfaction with being a white woman, describing it as a miserable experience characterized by self-hatred and criticism among white women. She laments how white women focus on their insecurities and fail to recognize their power, setting a poor example for their children.

Walsh responds with sarcasm, suggesting he might be added to their team, although the participants quickly shut down that idea. He mentions his DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) certification but is still dismissed. Another participant then chimes in, agreeing that white people are starved for these kinds of conversations. Walsh makes a brief comment, stating that he's glad they could all come together to have this conversation, but his remark is met with annoyance, as someone accuses him of acting. Walsh cleverly retorts that everyone is "acting" all the time, which is part of the problem, as people play roles instead of being genuine.

Cooper continues her reflection by stating that many women have

likely experienced similar situations where they felt trapped in an uncomfortable scenario but didn't know how to leave. She explains that the awkwardness and fear of confrontation made staying seem easier than addressing the situation directly. Walsh sarcastically remarks that this is the kind of content that earned Cooper a $125 million podcast deal. He notes that many of Cooper's listeners find her explanation relatable, with some suggesting it's unfair to ask why women don't leave uncomfortable situations, as they may not know how.

Walsh introduces a critique by Mary Morgan, a commentator and host of the "Pop Culture Crisis" show. Morgan argues that Cooper's story exemplifies why the Me Too movement arose, pointing to the dangerous combination of women's agreeableness and a culture that encourages promiscuity. Morgan criticizes the reliance on influencers like Cooper for moral guidance, describing it as "the blind leading the blind." She emphasizes the need for authority and protection for women, suggesting that the loss of traditional norms like chivalry and chastity has led to the decline of women's esteem in society.

Walsh praises Morgan's insight, contrasting it with the shallow content of "Call Her Daddy." He highlights the importance of having a thoughtful perspective when discussing cultural issues, even if listeners don't always agree with it. Walsh agrees with Morgan's point that chivalry once served to protect and honor women, with men taking the lead as protectors and providers. He argues that the modern dismissal of these roles has proven detrimental, leading to situations like the one Cooper described, where she felt lost and in need of direction.

Walsh concludes by interpreting Cooper's story as a call for leadership. He suggests that what Cooper really needed was for the man in her situation to take the lead, recognize that things weren't working out, and help her leave. He believes that this reflects a broader societal issue where the rejection of traditional gender roles has left many women without the guidance and protection they need, leading to unnecessary suffering.

Walsh elaborates on the situation Cooper described, suggesting that what she truly needed was for the man to lead and make decisions that she was too indecisive to make. He argues that her feminist principles prevent her from admitting this, but deep down, she and many other women still expect men to take the lead and blame them when they don't. Walsh points out that this dynamic is evident in many situations, especially those highlighted during the Me Too movement, where women often expect men to take responsibility even when both parties are equally at fault.

He then discusses the double standard in situations where both a man and a woman are intoxicated and engage in sexual activity. If the woman later regrets it, society often blames the man, assuming he should have taken the lead and stopped it. Walsh criticizes this logic, arguing that it unfairly holds men accountable while absolving women of any responsibility. He believes that this reflects a deeper societal expectation for men to lead, even though feminists deny wanting such leadership.

Walsh further criticizes the feminist movement for wanting the benefits of leadership without accepting the accompanying responsibilities and blame. He argues that feminists want to dismantle patriarchy but are unwilling to take on the burden of leadership themselves, leading to a society that is "shiftless, stranded, and leaderless." He compares this situation to a mutiny, where the rebels take control of a ship but lack the ability or desire to steer it effectively. This, he concludes, is why society is in a state of decay and why someone like Alex Cooper finds herself in such confusing and avoidable situations.

Walsh continues discussing the time the astronauts will spend on the International Space Station, explaining that they will experience approximately 4,000 sunrises due to the station orbiting the Earth 16 times a day. He marvels at the speed of the space station, which travels at 17,000 miles per hour, roughly 30 times faster than a commercial airplane. Despite this impressive speed, Walsh notes that it's still incredibly slow by cosmic standards. For instance, traveling to the nearest solar system at this speed would take many centuries, compared to light, which travels at 670 million miles per hour and still takes four years to make the journey.

Walsh reflects on how far humanity is from being an advanced civilization capable of interstellar travel. He likens our current space capabilities to primitive societies just beginning to use the wheel, suggesting that an advanced civilization would view us as we view jungle tribes. Even though the astronauts are stranded relatively close to Earth in cosmic terms, the effort to bring them home is still monumental. Walsh emphasizes that while humanity has made significant strides in space exploration, we are still in the infancy of space travel, with much progress yet to be made.

Walsh addresses a common argument used by moon landing conspiracy theorists, who question why humanity hasn't reached Mars or beyond if we went to the moon in the 1960s. He explains that space is vast, and the distances involved are unimaginably large. For example, while the Moon is 240,000 miles away, Mars is 140 million miles away. He compares the journey to walking across the street versus walking to Brazil, illustrating the enormous challenge of space travel. Walsh concludes that it could take thousands of years before humanity can travel through space in a significant way.

Walsh briefly promotes his upcoming film "Am I Racist?" which will be The Daily Wire's first theatrical release, set to premiere on September 13th. He mentions that the film's advanced ticket sales have doubled the number of theaters showing it nationwide, making the left "very nervous." He encourages viewers to buy tickets to further expand the film's reach, describing the project as both hilarious and enraging in its takedown of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).

Walsh begins this segment by humorously exaggerating the "sacrifice" he made for his audience by listening to an episode of the "Call Her Daddy" podcast. He explains that the podcast, hosted by Alex Cooper, is extremely popular among young women and focuses on sex and relationships. Cooper recently signed a $125 million deal with Sirius to move her show to their platform. Walsh describes the episode he listened to, where Cooper recounts a story about flying to Paris to meet a man she met on a dating app. Despite not being attracted to him in person, she stayed with him for a week and eventually contracted an STD. Walsh summarizes the story as pointless and uninteresting, questioning why anyone would choose to listen to it.

Walsh criticizes the podcast's content, arguing that it offers nothing of value and is the equivalent of mental junk food, similar to how porn is harmful to men. He finds it troubling that millions of young women spend their time listening to such trivial and meaningless stories. He suggests that women who consume this kind of content have no grounds to criticize men for watching porn, as both are harmful distractions that offer no real insight or fulfillment.

Walsh then introduces a clip from the episode, where Cooper tries to answer the question of why she didn't leave the uncomfortable situation in Paris. In the clip, Cooper admits that she can't fully articulate why she stayed, but she believes it's a common experience for women to endure discomfort rather than risk making a situation more awkward. She explains that staying and being miserable seemed easier than confronting the awkwardness and leaving. Cooper acknowledges that her decision might be confusing, but she feels it's relatable to many women.

Walsh introduces a critique by Mary Morgan, a commentator and host of the "Pop Culture Crisis" show. Morgan argues that Cooper's story exemplifies why the Me Too movement arose, pointing to the dangerous combination of women's agreeableness and a culture that encourages promiscuity. Morgan criticizes the reliance on influencers like Cooper for moral guidance, describing it as "the blind leading the blind." She emphasizes the need for authority and protection for women, suggesting that the loss of traditional norms like chivalry and chastity has led to the decline of women's esteem in society.

Walsh praises Morgan's insight, contrasting it with the shallow content of "Call Her Daddy." He highlights the importance of having a thoughtful perspective when discussing cultural issues, even if listeners don't always agree with it. Walsh agrees with Morgan's point that chivalry once served to protect and honor women, with men taking the lead as protectors and providers. He argues that the modern dismissal of these roles has proven detrimental, leading to situations like the one Cooper described, where she felt lost and in need of direction.

Walsh concludes by interpreting Cooper's story as a call for leadership. He suggests that what Cooper really needed was for the man in her situation to take the lead, recognize that things weren't working out, and help her leave. He believes that this reflects a broader societal issue where the rejection of traditional gender roles has left many women without the guidance and protection they need, leading to unnecessary suffering.

Walsh elaborates on the situation Cooper described, suggesting that what she truly needed was for the man to lead and make decisions that she was too indecisive to make. He argues that her feminist principles prevent her from admitting this, but deep down, she and many other women still expect men to take the lead and blame them when they don't. Walsh points out that this dynamic is evident in many situations, especially those highlighted during the Me Too movement, where women often expect men to take responsibility even when both parties are equally at fault.

He then discusses the double standard in situations where both a man and a woman are intoxicated and engage in sexual activity. If the woman later regrets it, society often blames the man, assuming he should have taken the lead and stopped it. Walsh criticizes this logic, arguing that it unfairly holds men accountable while absolving women of any responsibility. He believes that this reflects a deeper societal expectation for men to lead, even though feminists deny wanting such leadership.

Walsh further criticizes the feminist movement for wanting the benefits of leadership without accepting the accompanying responsibilities and blame. He argues that feminists want to dismantle patriarchy but are

unwilling to take on the burden of leadership themselves, leading to a society that is "shiftless, stranded, and leaderless." He compares this situation to a mutiny, where the rebels take control of a ship but lack the ability or desire to steer it effectively. This, he concludes, is why society is in a state of decay and why someone like Alex Cooper finds herself in such confusing and avoidable situations.

Walsh concludes the episode by officially "canceling" Alex Cooper, criticizing the content of her podcast and the harmful messages he believes it sends to young women. He then wraps up the show, thanking his audience for watching and listening, and wishes them a great day before signing off.

The video transitions into a promotional clip for Walsh's upcoming film "Am I Racist?" The clip highlights the film's exploration of race and the challenges of addressing racism in America. It features various scenes of Walsh interacting with people on his journey to understand racial issues, with some provocative statements about race and white supremacy. The promotion ends with a call to buy tickets for the film, which will be released in theaters on September 13th.